FAO Committee on Forestry
The eleventh session of the FAO Council's Committee on Forestry (COFO) was held at FAO headquarters in Rome from 8 to 12 March 1993. This meeting of COFO, the highest-level technical body of the Organization specifically focusing on forestry issues, was attended by delegates from 93 member countries and representatives of numerous international governmental and non-governmental organizations.
The meeting was held in a climate of intense political attention. On the one hand, in the aftermath of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), international concern for the forestry sector and the need to examine the implications that Agenda 21 and the "forest principles have" for the conservation and management of the forest heritage, as well as the contribution of these documents to sustainable development, had reached unprecedented levels. On the other hand, financial constraints had forced FAO to recommend a reduced budget for the Forestry Department during the coming 1994-95 biennium. Therefore, a key element of the discussions at COFO was the determination of priorities.
Forest resources assessment 1990
After considering a report on the 1990 Forest Resources Assessment Project and the final results for the industrialized and tropical countries [Ed. note: see main articles in this issue of Unasylva], the Committee emphasized the fundamental importance of continuous forest resources assessment as an element of sustainable forest management and stressed the need for FAO to give it high priority. The Committee also advised FAO to strengthen its cooperation with relevant national and international organizations in this field.
Forestry and nutrition
The Committee considered the links between forestry and nutrition as a follow-up to the 1992 FAO/WHO International Conference on Nutrition, and the relevant elements of UNCED. The contribution of forestry to nutritional well-being was recognized, both as a direct source of food supply and as a means of improving incomes, there by facilitating access to adequate and healthful food supplies. FAO's role in broadening this awareness was stressed: the publications and other materials produced by FAO were commended and their wider dissemination encouraged. The Committee underlined the fact that linkages between forestry and nutrition and forestry and agriculture for nutritional wellbeing had implications well beyond the confines of the forestry sector; the need for an interdisciplinary approach was stressed.
Forestry and sustainable development: UNCED outcomes and implications for FAO forestry
The Committee discussed the many developments that had occurred at the international level as a result of or in connection with UNCED: for example, the establishment of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development; the Global Forest Conference in Indonesia in February 1993; the scheduling of the second Ministerial Conference on Forest Protection in Europe in June 1993; and the establishment of the Centre for International Forestry Research in Bogor, Indonesia.
Against this background, however, it was recognized that the prime responsibility for action on UNCED follow-up would rest with individual countries. In this context, emphasis was put on the role of FAO in assisting countries in the formulation and implementation of national forestry action plans; forest resources assessment; sustainable forest resource management; capacity building; and the greening of the world through afforestation and reforestation, particularly for desertification control.
Medium-term perspectives and programme priorities for FAO forestry
The Committee endorsed the increasing attention being given to the multiple contributions of the forestry sector to overall economic and social development, welcoming, in particular, the intention to retain the orientation towards participatory approaches. In its review of detailed priorities for FAO, the Committee recognized the importance accorded to national forestry action plans within the context of the Tropical Forests Action Programme (TFAP) and welcomed the organization-wide multidisciplinary support being given to the Programme.
In the field of forest resources and environment, the Committee supported the priority accorded to continuous global forest resources assessment. Related to the needs of reforestation and afforestation programmes, the Committee called for support to genetic improvement activities and to the conservation and utilization of biodiversity. The need to increase attention to combating desertification was stressed.
In the area of forest products, the Committee endorsed greater attention to the efficient utilization and increased valorization of forest products in the overall context of environmental conservation. It reaffirmed support for activities in the development of non-wood forest products and small-scale forest enterprises, given their potential to increase income and other benefits for rural people. Attention to large-scale enterprises was to be de-emphasized but not eliminated.
The crucial work in country capacity-building would be spearheaded by the programme on forest investment and institutions. Policy advice and institutional strengthening are central to this programme. The Committee recommended that the concept of capacity-building be integrated in all FAO's forestry work, both at headquarters and in the field. The proposed policy and institutional support to countries undergoing structural adjustment and transition to market economies was also welcomed.
The important function of FAO in the communication and dissemination of forest information in general, and particularly the role of Unasylva, was also emphasized.
Progress in TFAP implementation
The discussion on this item focused on progress towards the establishment of an international consultative mechanism intended to provide guidance to the TFAP. The Committee reviewed a proposal to establish a consultative group with 32 members, including five intergovernmental organizations (FAO, ITTO, UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank), 12 developing countries, six developed countries, six NGOs (three from developing countries and three from developed countries), the Forestry Forum for Developing Countries and the TFAP Forestry Advisors Group. The consultative group would meet once a year. Although most of the members of COFO supported the basic proposal, there was a lengthy debate on many specific elements, including the potential for duplication of already existing bodies; the need for reporting procedures that would guarantee reflection of all views expressed by consultative group members; the modality for selection of NGO participants; and means for funding the group. The views of COFO would be transmitted to the FAO Council, which was expected to take a final decision on establishment of the TFAP consultative group at its 103rd session in June 1993.
Researchers produce plastic "timber" from waste
A new type of plastic "wood", made from industrial and consumer waste, could save municipalities millions of dollars in waste disposal costs, according to researchers at the University of Toronto. Researchers at the University are producing a wood-like composite from a combination of waste, including polyethylene containers, waste paper and wood residues. The result is a new generation of material, called self-reinforced plastics (SRP), which may outperform lumber in terms of resistance to moisture, weathering and rot.
Plastic wood is not a new idea, but previous efforts have produced products that were uncompetitive in terms of cost and performance. The Toronto research team claims SRP lumber overcomes these problems; the production process eliminates the need for extensive sorting of waste, bringing the costs of production down significantly; and, according to its developers, SRP lumber exhibits 40 percent greater spike-holding strength than traditional hardwood railway ties.
Research on SRP lumber has been funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Products Laboratory, Resource Plastics, Inc., Tetra Pak, Inc. and Forestry Canada.
Source: Forest Products Conservation and Recycling Review
